/m/phillies

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

It wasn't really a shitty article, more of a philly fanboy talking about how hot Utley has been so far this season and wishful thinking on him being .400.

There is no analysis or anything of substance in the "article." It's exactly what you would expect from a teenage blog post. Nothing wrong with that, as it makes me think who are the 10 most likely players to hit .400 in the next decade or so?

i don't think anyone is gonna do it anytime soon, but if we're just throwing out names, i'd say paul goldschmidt should be in the conversation. he has mammoth power in a hitter-friendly ballpark and if he takes another step forward, he seems like he'll be in that pujols mold of high average power hitters for the next decade-ish.

Basically the best chance anyone is going to have is to hit for decent or better power while striking out at a below average rate. Basically you have to hit to hit close to .400 on non-in-play at bats, and that's hard to do these days with all the strikeouts league wide.

i don't think anyone is gonna do it anytime soon, but if we're just throwing out names, i'd say paul goldschmidt should be in the conversation. he has mammoth power in a hitter-friendly ballpark and if he takes another step forward, he seems like he'll be in that pujols mold of high average power hitters for the next decade-ish.

I thought about Goldschmidt for a nano-second, and then forgot to look him up to see if last year was a fluke or if his history backs it up or whatnot. The high strikeouts bother me, but if he has a year where he brings it down to 100 or less, then it's a possibility. (same could be said about Hanley or Cargo)

I do not categorically deny that .400 is possible, it's tough to do obviously, but I don't think there is an inherent reason why it can't be done. I would have thought .400 would have happened before the single season base hit record ever got broken.

Trout's got to be the far and away favorite for odds to hit .400 in the near future. Put in a lineup where teams could/did pitch around him ala late career Bonds, so he could get the requisite PAs with relatively fewer ABs, combined with an established ability north of .320, he's probably somewhere between a 5000-1 and a 40,000-1 shot. Cabrera would be a candidate in the same vein, though he's headed towards a decline phase one would think.

Obviously no shot at .400 but a very good year from Chase Utley would be a huge step forward in his HOF argument.

I'm only half kidding, but I think there's probably a better chance he hits .400 than gets into the HOF (though hitting .400 might get him both). Utley has to be one of the most underrated players in history and will very likely deserve to go in on the numbers, but he's going to have to play until 38-40 at his current abilities to reach even the most minimal levels of milestone-like numbers (2000 hits, 400 2B, 300 HR, 1000 RBI).

I'm only half kidding, but I think there's probably a better chance he hits .400 than gets into the HOF (though hitting .400 might get him both). Utley has to be one of the most underrated players in history and will very likely deserve to go in on the numbers, but he's going to have to play until 38-40 at his current abilities to reach even the most minimal levels of milestone-like numbers (2000 hits, 400 2B, 300 HR, 1000 RBI).

I think Utley is tied with a similar player for that distinction, Grich. There are other underrated players, but those are the two I think of who have a fairly clear hof career that was hidden in the numbers too much for them to be properly appreciated.

Trout's got to be the far and away favorite for odds to hit .400 in the near future. Put in a lineup where teams could/did pitch around him ala late career Bonds, so he could get the requisite PAs with relatively fewer ABs, combined with an established ability north of .320, he's probably somewhere between a 5000-1 and a 40,000-1 shot. Cabrera would be a candidate in the same vein, though he's headed towards a decline phase one would think.

I would consider Trout as probably the favorite.

As a Cardinal fan, I like what Matt Carpenter does with the bat and how he doesn't let the situation change his approach and it feels like he can be a perennial batting champ contender.

Utley has to be one of the most underrated players in history and will very likely deserve to go in on the numbers, but he's going to have to play until 38-40 at his current abilities to reach even the most minimal levels of milestone-like numbers (2000 hits, 400 2B, 300 HR, 1000 RBI).

Barry Larkin wasn't any above these numbers as a whole -- 2,340 hits, 441 doubles (which I highly doubt anyone cares), 198 HR, 960 RBI -- and yet cruised in within three years. The writers aren't that dumb, that they can't fathom that being a dominant middle infielder for a decade is HOF-worthy, even if it doesn't equate to monster career Triple Crown numbers.

The problem is that I don't think the writers, at least as of this moment, appreciate that Utley genuinely was a dominant middle infielder. MVP voting would certainly suggest that, anyway. His HOF case probably ends up depending entirely on how quickly the HOF electorate becomes sabermetrically minded. It could happen quicker than you think...

I think the fact that they play fewer games is a major point in the favor of catchers

Agree with that for the most part, but Yadier misses probably 15 or so infield hits that a normal player would have had, on top of that the defense is able to play extremely deep against him, effectively robbing him of a few regular hits that would have gone through if they played normal depth. I just think that lack of speed sets up a "cap" that a player can probably reach. Obviously a personal opinion on it, as guys like Wade Boggs or Williams have been up high batting averages without good speed.

The writers aren't that dumb, that they can't fathom that being a dominant middle infielder for a decade is HOF-worthy, even if it doesn't equate to monster career Triple Crown numbers.

Well, Utley hasn't finished better than 2nd on his own team in the MVP voting, including not receiving a vote in 2010 when 4 other Phillies including Ryan Howard (1.2 WAR) did. He's also never won a GG. I'm pretty sure the writers are, mostly, that dumb.

I guess Trout would be the "favorite" in that he last slightly more than ZERO chance. But that's where the list ends as of today. There's a reason no one other than Carew has approached .400 over a full season in more than 70 years: It's just damned hard, and the game is just too finely calibrated for it to (in all likelihood)ever happen again (I'm sure most of the folks on this board have read or are aware of Stephen Jay Gould's essay on the subject). Infield shifts, ever increasing reliance on bullpen specialists, reduction in PED use (including amphetamines)... not happening.

How hard is it? Ichiro didn't get close when he lashed 262 hits in a season; Bonds didn't close when he walked 232 times in a season. Walker, Helton, et al couldn't crack it at the height of Coors Field absurdity. I mean, c'mon. I'd have to think that the conditions/circumstances needed to reach .400 are at least as unique as those required to put together a 57 game hitting streak. You'd need a contact specialist with blazing speed, superb plate discipline (to limit ABs), and historic luck on BABIP (i.e., a combination of 2004 Bonds and 2004 Ichiro).

In 14 games, he leads the National League with a .429 average with 14 hits in 56 at-bats, seven doubles, three homers and 10 RBIs, a .484 on base percentage and a slugging average of .714 for an OPS of 1,198!

Even I don’t expect Utley to maintain that pace

Then why write article? Me not expect Utley maintain, either. This not newsworthy.

I guess Trout would be the "favorite" in that he last slightly more than ZERO chance. But that's where the list ends as of today. There's a reason no one other than Carew has approached .400 over a full season in more than 70 years: It's just damned hard, and the game is just too finely calibrated for it to (in all likelihood)ever happen again (I'm sure most of the folks on this board have read or are aware of Stephen Jay Gould's essay on the subject). Infield shifts, ever increasing reliance on bullpen specialists, reduction in PED use (including amphetamines)... not happening.

Yet over a 162 game stretch, Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs did hit over .400. There is no inherent reason other than the actual difficulty, that .400 can't be reached again.

For his career, Utley strikes out in 17% of his at-bats. To hit .400 while striking out 17% of the time, you'd have to hit .482 on contact. Utley has homered in 4.4% of his career at-bats, so the only way he hits .482 on contact is to maintain his current BAbip, instead of regressing toward his career .307 mark.

Ted Williams had about twice Utley's HR rate and about 1/3 of his K rate in 1941.

Utley has to be one of the most underrated players in history and will very likely deserve to go in on the numbers, but he's going to have to play until 38-40 at his current abilities to reach even the most minimal levels of milestone-like numbers (2000 hits, 400 2B, 300 HR, 1000 RBI).

It's hard to reach the HoF when you were a 24 year old rookie. Only 17 of 192 non pitcher HoFers were 24 or older in their rookie season, per BR PI. That includes Robinson, Campanella and Doby, which means really 14 of 192. Only Boggs, Puckett and Fisk are recent players, a 3000 hit machine playing at age 41, a popular early retiree and an iron man catcher playing at age 45 with a clutch World Series moment.

I thought about Goldschmidt for a nano-second, and then forgot to look him up to see if last year was a fluke or if his history backs it up or whatnot. The high strikeouts bother me, but if he has a year where he brings it down to 100 or less, then it's a possibility. (same could be said about Hanley or Cargo)

Babe Ruth had 93 in a .393 season. But yes, if I was going to design a player who is likely to hit .400 I would probably look at a guy who avoids strikeouts, has the ability to hit to all fields, add in a little speed, willingness to take a walk and some power.

Utley's HOF argument, such as it is, is basically Koufax's, except that Utley's peak value seasons didn't occur in reverse chronological order, and Koufax was actually recognized for his greatness as it was happening. Well, and 2B essentially get no respect.

I know it's common parlance but the term "middle infielder" really bugs me. 2B and SS are not the same. Not even remotely. And HoF voting results make it very clear that the voters have not considered them the same. Maranville, Aparicio, Ozzie, Concepcion's cromulent 15-year run, Vizquel the HoF candidate, even Trammell v. Whitaker/Grich.

2B and 3B are similar ... and the voters have treated them about equally shabbily.

As to Utley, he needs an incredible late-career run of health and productivity. He's on just 5700 PA, he's got only 1400 hits. No MVP, no GG, only 5 AS. He ain't Hank Greenberg.

He probably needs to be close to another Molitor -- 314/377/456, 119 OPS+, 1200 hits, 20 WAR from age 35 on. That was 4400 PA which would bring Utley to over 10,000 so he probably doesn't need quite that many. But how likely is it he'll hit 300 over such an extended stretch in his late 30s? Maybe 280/377/456 gets it done?

If I seem grumpy, sorry ... I'm depressed that Bonifacio's silliness didn't even last long enough for somebody to get out a "can Bonifacio hit 400" article.

You are making me think, if the internet was around in the 70's, what would have been written about Kenny Reitz in 1974.

'
While 74 was a nice start, Reitz had an even better run six years later*, hitting over .400 as late as May 13 (he only took a .400 BA through May 2 in 1974).

And while there was no BTF, I seem to recall a few "Will he hit .400?" pieces in 1980.

* If you haven't seen Reitz's monthly splits before, check them out. If there's a better blueprint for a sub-replacement player carving out an 8-year career as a starter (11 years total) than Kenny's, I haven't found it. If you hit like crazy every April, you can play like crap for the next five months while teams and fans wait for you to return to your normal level.

Matt Carpenter does not belong anywhere near this list. Ellsbury, McCutcheon and CarGo all strike out too much.

I think the only guys with a real shot are Mauer, Cabrera, Trout and Votto. Votto strikes out too much, but he has insane BABIP for his career.

I see Matt Carpenter play nearly everyday, this is a guy who sprays the ball to all fields, who doesn't really care what the count is, has decent power, average speed, works a count and is batting in front of some very good bats (especially if he gets moved to the number two spot, which is where Matheny wants him)

I know it's a fanboy pick, but he's going to challenge for batting titles over the next five years and as I said when I made that list, it was more or less a list of people who might lead the league in average.

For single seasons, From 1914 to 2014, April/March (within Months), (requiring PA>=500 for entire season and >=18 games in April/March), sorted by greatest percentage of total Batting Average in this split

Whitaker is one of the leading examples of a HoVG player with a really long career. Or at least the saber equivalent of that kind of player. (Think Winfield, Murray, Palmeiro, etc.) He has 1 point of black ink -- which appears to be for leading the league in games in a strike season -- and just 31 points of gray ink. Only 1 year with any MVP votes, etc.

Also he was platooned for a good chunk of his late career -- helped his rate stats, hurt his counting stats. 1991 ties for his best WAR year but he only started 11 of their first 19 games and had just 122 starts the whole year. He did miss a week in July with an injury (I assume) and started just 23 of 30 in August. He still put up nearly 7 WAR that year. 92 with just 117 starts also seems to be one of his WAR7 years. Whitaker's peak probably looks even worse compared to HoF 2B if you required consecutive years.

Votto strikes out too much, but he has insane BABIP for his career.

In part because he never pops up. I'd agree he's probably the best shot at 400 (think Olerud/Brett/Boggs).

By the way, when Boggs/Gwynn had their 162 game stretches of hitting 400 ... how long did that last, were they both exactly 162 games? Because that's the other aspect of this -- luck. Who knows how many 162 game stretches of hitting 400 there have been. Not a lot obviously but more than 400 seasons. Somewhat similarly, Neyer (I think) once went looking for "perfect games" by relievers -- there were quite a few as I recall.

Somewhat similarly, Neyer (I think) once went looking for "perfect games" by relievers -- there were quite a few as I recall.

There is a significant difference between the two. Hitting .400 over a two-season 162-game stretch is no easier than hitting it in a single season*. But a reliever putting together nine consecutive 1-2-3 innings in different outings is considerably easier than a starter doing it over a single game.

* There are obviously more opportunities to do so if you're looking at a two-season span than with the specific end points of the first and last day of a single season, but the task itself is equally hard from Games 45 to 44 as it is from 1-162.

I do think Bonds could have hit .400 in his insane stretch from 2001-2004 if he decided that's what he wanted. With the crazy walk rate, shifts, and his home runs, I think he could have hit a few balls the other way and got to .400. He was only 10-15 hits a way from doing so and I think he was more focused on hitting homers.

Since 1942, the most PAs somebody has had in a .400 season is ... Bob Hazle with 134. Ted Williams is actually second with a .407 average in 110 PAs in 1953. If Blackmon and Utley were to suffer season ending injuries tomorrow, they'd be fifth and sixth in PAs in a .400 season.

There's a reason no one other than Carew has approached .400 over a full season in more than 70 years: It's just damned hard, and the game is just too finely calibrated for it to (in all likelihood) ever happen again

I won't dispute any of your points. It's hard to hit .400 over a full season. I think it's only been done once since 1930, and that's a lot of individual baseball seasons. However, it doesn't strike me as something that is essentially impossible, like 40 wins or 50 complete games. Gwynn and Boggs, as mentioned, did it over 162 games in the not-so-distant past; Carew and Brett got close in an (on-field) environment that wasn't drastically different from today's; four guys (rounding up for Bonds) have hit .370 or better since 2000, which is at least somewhat in range.

What I think you're discounting is that baseball could change in the next few years in a way that would make it easier for some types of hitters to hit for a higher average. Maybe it's a new style of swinging, maybe it's new pitching tactics that are willing to give up singles to prevent XBH or walks, maybe the strike zone or mound will be changed. Maybe there's some 15-year-old kid in the Dominican who is the best base-hitting artist in history. (Think a slightly better or more in-his-prime Ichiro. Remember, Ichiro didn't come to MLB until he was 27. It's actually possible that we didn't see him at his best. He hit .385 in Japan as a 20-year-old.)

In 1988, there were probably quite a few people who thought "No one will every hit 60 HR again. It's too hard with these specialized relievers, and the split-finger fastball, and the big parks, and the outfielders pulling back HR, and all the travel..." Then 10 years later, it starting happening with astonishing regularity -- 6 times in 4 years. And now it looks like it probably won't happen again... until it does.

There is a significant difference between the two. Hitting .400 over a two-season 162-game stretch is no easier than hitting it in a single season*. But a reliever putting together nine consecutive 1-2-3 innings in different outings is considerably easier than a starter doing it over a single game.

not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but the phillies have not had an extra base hit since monday. they got kind of a bad break having to face jimmy chitwood and sparky lyles at coors field the last two days, so hopefully they'll be able to end this streak against julio nicotero today. fingers crossed.

To go back to the article, Utley having a good season might be the only ray of sunlight on what could be a dismal year, so cut Phillies fans some slack if they go overboard. :) After watching him struggle over the last few years, it's really nice to see him driving the ball again and hustling down the line.

Brett only played 117 games (515 plate appearances) in his .390 campaign.

That's a good point. Instead of looking for 162-game stretches of batting over .400, we should look at 502-PA stretches to see how possible it is to hit .400 over a "full" (by MLB rules) season.

I think it's pretty likely (because it's easier) that the next .400 hitter will do it in while missing a lot of games (e.g., Brett in 1980) and/or getting a lot of walks (e.g., Barry Bonds in 2002-2004). Obviously any hitter is more likely to hit .400 over 350 AB than over 650 AB.

I won't dispute any of your points. It's hard to hit .400 over a full season. I think it's only been done once since 1930, and that's a lot of individual baseball seasons. However, it doesn't strike me as something that is essentially impossible, like 40 wins or 50 complete games. Gwynn and Boggs, as mentioned, did it over 162 games in the not-so-distant past; Carew and Brett got close in an (on-field) environment that wasn't drastically different from today's; four guys (rounding up for Bonds) have hit .370 or better since 2000, which is at least somewhat in range.

I'm with you. Given that 1) some people have approached it over 502-PA stretches, 2) the game has in the past been configured in ways that made .400 easier, and 3) the game is always changing, sometimes unpredictably, I would give a lot of room for uncertainty.

My dad is 69 and in good health but still is a 69 year old male. Would I bet that he'll see a .400 hitter in his lifetime? (He just missed Williams by 4 years.) No, I wouldn't bet that.

I'm 42 in good health. If someone gave me 3-1 odds of seeing a .400 hitter in my lifetime, I would definitely take it. I might even take 1-1 odds. Any given person doing it in any given season is staggeringly unlikely, but there's going to be a lot of seasons in my life, if I possess average luck.

My kids are 6 and 7. I would for sure bet that they see a .400 season. Betting on stasis over what would project to be a long time is a losing bet, even if no one can predict when changes will come and what form they will take.

Betting against your kids seeing a .400 season is not betting on stasis. It's betting against change that would favor a .400 season.

Also, I was a little bit surprised that Roy Smalley's 1979 didn't show up on bobm's list in #49. But after checking the game logs, it makes sense. He was over .400 as late as May 20, and at .372 on July 4. Hit .271 for the year.

Also, although it's not the playground it used to be, Coors still gives a nice boost to BA -- put Gwynn in Coors and he probably hits 400. (You probably need some power to do it ... not sure Ichiro would get a big BA boost at Coors.)

I often wondered what would have happened if the Rockies had ever just said, "Screw it", given up on ever getting good pitching and thrown all their resources into truly extraordinary, elite-level hitters. What sort of numbers could the Cyborg Death Machine version of Barry Bonds or even the circa-2000 version of Delgado, Giambi or Manny Ramirez put up in 81 games at Coors?

Bonds played about a full season's* worth of games at Coors in his career. His numbers were impressive, but not otherwordly (at least not otherwordly for Barry). He hit .336/.463/.693 in 81 games worth. He had even better numbers at Jack Murphy in 125 more at bats (.343/.488/.729).

I agree with those bringing up Coors; pre-humidifier Coors was an offensive record waiting to happen. Walker in 1997 and Helton in 2000 put up some ridiculous numbers, and while they were legitimately very good hitters, neither was truly one of the best of the best, even amongst their own era. What would've happened if prime Bonds, Pujols, Manny, Thomas, Piazza, etc had played for the Rockies? I suspect we'd have seen a .400 season.

I don't know if singles/doubles hitters would really benefit from Coors as much as power hitters, but putting their stats in the Baseball Reference neutralizer and converting them to 2000 Rockies levels, Gwynn is a .398 lifetime hitter with eight .400 seasons. Carew is at .392 with six .400 seasons. Boggs also has six. Ichiro has four.

I think this thread speaks for itself in terms of those questioning why it got posted - it's generated some discussion. Utley's having quite a first month, and for a guy with a fairly ambiguous Hall of Fame case right now (as it stands probably deserving but unlikely to get voted in), one magical year where he recaptures his peak form could have ramifications. Also it's just fun talking about players who are playing well.

The article itself isn't terribly important, but Utley seems like as good a topic as any to discuss. Call it a OT: Utley Thread.

Yet over a 162 game stretch, Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs did hit over .400. There is no inherent reason other than the actual difficulty, that .400 can't be reached again.

These are the types of guys that do this: People with career .330 averages.

Matt Carpenter? That's a worse fanboy pick than Utley. "Challenge for batting titles the next 5 years"? He's 28, and didn't even get a shot until he was 26. I doubt he'll still be a regular in 5 years, if in the major leagues.

He just signed a 6-year contract. He's got a good chance to be a regular and very likely to still be in the majors.

I will agree I see no reason to expect him to challenge for batting titles on a regular basis. 299 career minor-league, best season was a 316 at AA in 2010 (which he beat in MLB last year). He did make it to 400 in their 9th game last year, he has hit 342 in May for his career and he hit 348 from May 7 to July 24 last year so of course it's possible he'll put it all together for a season and win a batting title. Also last year's 318 was good for 6th.

Obviously the Cards expect Carpenter to be (for example) a better version of Bill Mueller (certainly more power, maybe better BA) and Mueller did pull out one BA title somehow. They might even be thinking he's the next Chase Utley (at least as a hitter) and Utley pulled off a 332 season (3rd place). Bernie Williams had 1 top season and 3 other top 4 finishes. I'm surprised to find that in 94 (strike year) O'Neill hit 359. Raines had a first and two 3rds from 85-87. Lynn managed to win one and finish second (283 career BA). I know 3 of the 6 guys I've mentioned were switch-hitters but they're roughly Carpenter-like hitters.